Tidbits of Jugghead

[jugghead]

Excellent post Marie  :iagree: :dsunny:

and wanted to add --- especially your opening statement:

It's what I think of as a real Pandora's box.. this ability to perceive and make a judgment.. decision, choice, or that is, in its most original, the ability to think, ponder, weigh, judge (as in discern).

Thanks! ...thinking of that.. what would be His other option? Or another option. Maybe there's more than one other option? :dontknow:

I would like to reply to this, but so that there are no misunderstandings, I would like to know what specific option(s) are you speaking of?

Never creating rational creatures.. or sticking with merely very young, extremely young rational beings who cannot really make any sort of choice.. Or create all as fully programmed with no ability to think outside of the parameters God sets. But I think that is what He IS doing through this travail of learning good from evil.. Or we could be attached to spiritual strings that God forever Himself (only) pulls..

But it's my thinking that He is creating - replicating, if you will, the Son, He being the original replication of God.. the only straight out from Him one, within whom the rest of us shall all live..

There's the imaginary world of 'the gods' where all were human like.. made war, cheated, murdered one another, etc.. Or a universe made up of those and only of those (ultimately) who share God's character. This, to me, will seal the state of perfection of what He is creating, and, allow for fully rational created beings. Which I assume we all more or less believe, but differ some on how He is doing it.

Yes, I would agree that there was no other option but "to" create rational beings, and that because; knowing that God has the ability to think begs the question: How can we be created in His image if we were not able to think, to rationalize, discern, make a choice? If we weren't, then we are no different then just having a nature that acts on instinct, the instinct to survive.

For me, survival of the fittest is not living, living for me is to be able to identify with what another is going through, to have compassion, to have empathy and through our weaknesses in these abilities, He is strong, strengthening those abilities in us, we can recognize a need because we too have been through not having others identify with us, been through others not having compassion towards us, been through others not having empathy towards us and it is only by these things that we are now capable of doing something about it for another ----- which is just the long version of these short terms:

"We love Him (and others) because He first loved us" (1st John 4:19)
"I do nothing of myself" (John 8:28)

and in my own words, I have "no idea" how to love another if I am not shown "how" to love another.

[jugghead]

After I woke up this morning, a thought was brought to mind.

It is only at the point of being woke up that we know we have been asleep, wouldn't this example be just another way of saying: it is only at the point of being resurrected that we know we have been dead?

and by understanding that a parable is: things in this world used to understand spiritual things: wouldn't that make the first statement a parable to understand the spirtual thing of resurrection?

and that the short process of waking up is just a very small picture of a bigger one; that this short life can be understood as the process of waking up; and that our waking up to truth is the partaking of the first resurrection?

Just some thoughts I am thinking about and wanted to share

Blessings

EDIT: and that the reason God shortened our lifespan here was so we could understand resurrection in a shorter period of time ---- and come to think about it ---- what a blessing and a perfect picture of the grace of God

[eaglesway]

Those are my thoughts as well. The whole post kinda right where I am at on those things. I especially like Pauls Mars Hill sermon in Acts 17 on the last part about a lifetime as an opportunity to contemplate/come to understand resurrection

[jugghead]

As I was catching up on reading the posts from these last few days, some thoughts came to mind.

That God became something He did not want to do, but knew it was the only way for us to understand.

What I mean by this is: that God did not want to become a judge of His people, but He had to do it in order for us to completely understand the depths of what the law can do. And this is because in order to carry out the law to the letter, all emotion towards that person (or people) being judged has to be eliminated, no favoritism can be shown.

Thereby, by the Father handing over all authority to the Son, the Father -- as a judge of all His people (all of mankind) -- had to die, and the death of that judge - through the Son - took place in order to come to understand the true nature of God before the world was, and by and through the understanding of UR, our true Father - our Father of Grace - is being resurrected.

Even ET'ers believe in the grace of God through the Son, but what they still see is:

our heavenly Father as a "judge to all" through the "old covenant of the law"
rather than
a loving Father of "mercy to all" through the "new covenant of grace".

The Son can only do what He sees the Father do, so to be like Christ is to put to death that "old judge" in us and become "new grace"

A new creature

Putting to death that old judge in the flesh to become a new creature of grace in the Spirit

Just some thoughts

[jugghead]

In what I have come to understand "wills", that the will of man is not stronger than the will of the Father, only that the Father will allow His will to be bound by the will of man, that God will submit to the will of man in being bound, because Love does not force ..... but that only delays the inevitable, delays the Father's will being accomplished in their life later rather than sooner.

and in the words of Christ, "not my will, but your will", in other words, all have to come to this one inevitable conclusion, we have been given the power to bind, but "whatever we bind on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever we loose on earth will be loosed in heaven"

If we bind God's will here, we bind it in heaven, but if we loose God's will here, it is loosed in heaven, but I also believe this happens more so on an individual basis and not corporately here on this side of Jordan and that is because, in heaven, on the other side of Jordan, His will CANNOT be bound, and if man wants to bind His will there, that is what I see in, they will be tossed into the outer darkness for He never knew them and that the outer darkness they are being tossed back into IS "their own will", in other words, our own will here, on this side of Jordan, is the outer darkness outside the will of the Father, and that is understood as: being outside the will of the Father is TO BE in darkness .... TO BE in our own will .... and TO BE in the will of the Father is to be in HIS LIGHT ...

And that the outer darkness is just another way of saying LOF, the purifying process, starting from the beginning as a child that understands little, because if we do not go through the process here, we will there and THAT is the will of the Father.

just my thoughts

[sheila]

many will find out when they get home..that they willfully sinned.Instead of heeding'you must forgive all that trespass against you..or

your Father in heaven will not forgive you. " willfully hanging on to unforgiveness of your fellow man[falling short of love..which keeps

no account of the injury] when told you MUST forgive..realizing they want no part of the abyss or LOF..they bow the knee/repent and

confess' JESUS IS LORD". :2c:

[eaglesway]

 :iagree:

[Dandelion]

Yes, we can do our will on earth, but, once we see God, and go home, we will not be able to deny truth anymore. We will have to face whatever we have done to distance ourselves from God. We will know the truth....no more will we see from a mirror, dimly. And, if we have run from the truth, we will need to be transformed....thus the Lake of Fire.

"Thy will be done, on earth, as it is in Heaven"

1 Corinthians 13:

8Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. 11When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 12For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
13And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

D.

[sheila]

Look and see how Jesus dealt with the woman caught in the "act"of adultery.!1.He ended the fight over her. 2He pardoned her

iniquity.3.The hassle and threat of death from the crowd was enough..and the would be stone-throwers departed-leaving her alone

with Christ.

now apply this to those spirits of men resurrected[spirits of just men made perfect]in regard to the second death..LOF........

who is going to take sides with the'accusor of the brethern"..and go into the LOF with them?


when you take into account the 'woman'is representative of the church/saints overcome of the dragon..and have been pushing

condemnation/hellfire/ED and ET andLOF death and judgement[spiritual adultery] commandments of men and not the WORD OF

GOD/GRACE/SALVATION OF ALL/FORGIVENESS OF ALL SIN/PEACE TO HIM NEAR AND AFAR,of her betothed /Husband.

the 'church'itself has had it's part in the binding up of the all in sin. Are any of us fit to 'loose the bindings/laces' of His  sandals? 

remove them and use them to bind up men with unforgiveness of sin?.[How beautiful the feet that publisheth PEACE]

andbecome onewith the dragon..instead of Christ....youcan appreciate how/why He atoned especially for those who believed

and were overcome  of the dragon. These were the very ones that putHim to death and requested a robber be released...

who will rob God of what He has redeemed? ALL MEN.

   A HOUSE OF PRAYER FOR ALL MEN........Men have the right to pray unto God and have all their sins forgiven and not counted against

them.Iwas amember at onetime inthepast..of an overcome church.....that denied even the right to prayer of anyone who was

nota member in good standing with them..they say..Christ is not your mediator,we are!!!!!Blasphemy!Canyou say,'liar,liar,

pants on fire?"Clothed in strange garments/doctrines..instead of the wedding garment...they are unable to sup.You can not

be partakers with demonic doctrines and Christ's. ED is their doctrine..but there are many..short of love/truth/perfect understanding.

thus..the threat of death under the law covenat..and the threat of death under the GRACE covenant..has been a double portion

for all our sins........[missing the mark of Love]  :2c:

[marie glen]

In what I have come to understand "wills", that the will of man is not stronger than the will of the Father, only that the Father will allow His will to be bound by the will of man, that God will submit to the will of man in being bound, because Love does not force ..... but that only delays the inevitable, delays the Father's will being accomplished in their life later rather than sooner.

and in the words of Christ, "not my will, but your will", in other words, all have to come to this one inevitable conclusion, we have been given the power to bind, but "whatever we bind on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever we loose on earth will be loosed in heaven"

If we bind God's will here, we bind it in heaven, but if we loose God's will here, it is loosed in heaven, but I also believe this happens more so on an individual basis and not corporately here on this side of Jordan and that is because, in heaven, on the other side of Jordan, His will CANNOT be bound, and if man wants to bind His will there, that is what I see in, they will be tossed into the outer darkness for He never knew them and that the outer darkness they are being tossed back into IS "their own will", in other words, our own will here, on this side of Jordan, is the outer darkness outside the will of the Father, and that is understood as: being outside the will of the Father is TO BE in darkness .... TO BE in our own will .... and TO BE in the will of the Father is to be in HIS LIGHT ...

And that the outer darkness is just another way of saying LOF, the purifying process, starting from the beginning as a child that understands little, because if we do not go through the process here, we will there and THAT is the will of the Father.

just my thoughts

   :thumbsup: :iagree: ...And amen Dandelion and Sheila :thumbsup:

[jugghead]

This is something I wrote to myself awhile back, and what Sheila commented on brought it back to mind .....

I myself prefer using the words "good news" rather than the word "gospel" since many people are taught and understand the word "gospel" in the context of "doctrine". And for me, this is the difference I see between the two covenants, law and grace. For me, the word "gospel" in the context of "doctrine" ... it tends to lead us back under the old covenant of the law, as something we have to strictly adhere to ..... whereas the word "gospel" in the context of "good news", under the new covenant of grace, it is something we can rejoice in.

In short .... something we can rejoice about .... not fear

[jugghead]

Evil, Good, Righteousness


Here is something to think about, that I know most do not, simply because it has taken 60 years for me to be brought to this conclusion. Most people only view things as good or evil. And I say most, because there are those who say there are some things that are neither good or evil, and then there are some who say that some things can be both good and evil. What most miss out on is understanding the difference between "what is good" and "what is righteous".

In what I have come to understand through my studies is: When we take a law ..... the law that says: do not steal. We know for a fact that it is evil to steal and that it is good not to steal. But do we, in our own understanding connect righteousness with being good? What I mean by this is: we know it is good not to steal, but if we don't steal, does the fact that we do not steal, make us righteous? I myself, don't believe so ..... what makes us righteous is "to give". Simply put:

what is considered to be evil is "to steal"
what is considered to be good is "not to steal"
but what is considered to be righteous is "to give"

..... likewise with killing:

what is considered to be evil is "to kill"
what is considered to be good is "to not kill"
but what is considered to be righteous is "to give life"

Understanding the difference between "the covenant of law" and "the covenant of grace". We know that the "law" is good and that it should be obeyed, but do we love the law more than we love Jesus? If Jesus is "righteous", that "being righteous" is an attribute of Jesus and that "being good" is an attribute of the law and that the Father gave us both, He gave us both the law and He gave us Jesus, that He gave us the law under "the old" covenant of the law and that He gave us Jesus under "the new" covenant of grace, have we come to love "what is good" (the law) more than "what is righteous" (Jesus)? And have we come to love "being good" through the law more than we love "being righteous" through Christ?

For me, to understand the difference between "what is good" and "what is righteous" is so misunderstood because the mind can believe that they are exactly the same thing when they're not. Because even people of church teachings know that there is a big difference between "just being good" and "being righteous". And do we misunderstand that our obedience to the law is "just being good", but our obedience to Christ is "being righteous"? But this comes down to "the reason" for doing something, in other words, it comes down to our "motive" FOR doing something.

Understanding the difference between "have to" and "want to" is very important at this time. Because what is our "motive" FOR giving? Do we give because we "have to" or do we give because we "want to"? In other words, do we give because it is "law" written "ON" our hearts and we "have to" obey that law, OR, do we give because it is "grace" "IN" our hearts and we "want to" obey that grace? Do we see that this "grace" IN our hearts is different than "the law" written ON our hearts?

The disciple John wrote down these words of Christ in the book of Revelation:

"Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear My voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with Me." (3:20).

Have we opened the door to our hearts and let the "Grace" of God in? And when we look upon our own heart, do we look beyond whatis written ON our hearts (the law) and see what is IN our hearts (grace)? And do we understand that when we give, it is Christ IN us "wanting to give" to another rather than ourselves of law "having to give" to another? And by this, do we get a better understanding of these words of John:

"Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is He that is in you, than he that is in the world."
(1 John 4:4).

That it is a greater thing to give because you "want to" through Grace, rather than to give because you "have to" through law? Have we BECOME the Grace of God, having entered into the new covenent of grace or have we REMAINED in the law of God, remaining under the old covenant of the law?

The apostle Paul writes these words:

"Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. (Galatians 3:24)

This word "faith" is G1402 with the definition of "persuasion", taken from the word G3982 which means "to convince". So with this in mind, shouldn't we understand that this definition of "persuasion" is understood in the context of "to persuade" or "to convince"? And that when we bring in the concept of "the law", that it is to be understood as "being persuaded" or "being convinced", what is good and what is evil? That the law itself can convince us "what is good" and "what is evil"? But, do we realize that "what is righteous" comes through Christ? Which is why I believe the apostle Paul states what he does in that the law is our schoolmaster to teach us good and evil, but that it is to lead us to Christ to understand "what is righteous" so that we can be justified by being persuaded; being convinced of "what is righteous" through Christ.

This is also why I believe what Paul says when he states:

"For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth."
(Romans 10:3-4).

That the ignorance, the lack of understanding God's righteousness (that is "to give"), they went about establishing their own righteousness (that is "to not steal"), having not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God, that righteousness of God being "to give", not just "to not steal", Because Christ is the end of the law for righteousness, "to not steal", to every one that believeth. Do we believe that this is what the apostle meant when he had these words written down in his letter to the Romans? Or do we still lack understanding "what is good" through the law AND "what is righteous" through Christ? For me, it is the understanding of: under the old covenant of the law, it was righteous (good) not to steal, but under the new covenant of grace, what becomes righteous is "to give".

Another reason I believe this is because of the short phrase Paul wrote with the words: "what the law could not do" (Romans 8:3), that the law could not show us "what is righteous", it could not show us that it is "righteous to give", it could only show us "what is good", in other words: it could only show us it was "good" not to steal.

I have no idea if you ..... the reader ..... understand these things that I have written. I hope that you do and that I have not caused you any confusion. That is the last thing I want to do. So all I ask is, if you are confused in understanding this: then consider me a liar and let God be true. Take this directly to Him and literally live the words:

"let God be true; but every man a liar" (Romans 3:4).

I too, am just a man, so consider me a liar. I put myself out there to be judged by you, and I put what I write out there to be judged by you. I don't have to give you any authority to judge me or judge what I write, you already have that. All I ask is that you try to understand the point I am trying to make by thinking about it first; thinking about it "before" you come to a verdict of whether I am a liar or not.

The reason I say all this is because; when we take into consideration the other law I was talking about, that it is evil "to kill" and that it is "good" not to kill; do we also understand that to be righteous is "to give life"? Which raises the question: How do we, being just a human being, give life to someone else, when we know that only God can literally give life to someone?

So by this, thinking from a different perspective, have we ever considered that "to give life" to someone can be understood differently than what we have been taught? If "God is Love" and "Christ is Life" and if we have seen Christ, we have seen the Father; wouldn't it stand to reason that to give "love" to another is to give "life" to another? Do we see this when we read the words:

"And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." (Matthew 22:39),

That if we are giving "love" to our neighbor, we are giving "life" to our neighbor? Do we not yet understand that the understanding
of: the Father and the Son are one, is the same as saying: "Love" and "Life" are one? It has taken over 13 years of studying for me to understand this.

I hope it takes others less.

Blessings

[rosered]

  Absolutly lovely    Jugg !

   I do see what you are saying so eloquently  and explained so very well .  Very timely and needed to hear it .
   
   I can see the grace of GOD  as the good and perfect gifts from above  , Christ  is to complete/perfect  us  by  learning grace by  the  law of Love .

  Thank you for sharing this brother , truly the Lord is with you .

[Patinak]

Amen

[marie glen]

Amen! "His yoke is easy, and His burden (expectation?) is light'. NOT heavy! Oh how man loves to make it heavy! Often for others, sometimes for self (and then others too of course :doh: ).

And I think of it as grace works within us. As you said "in the heart" but the law, rules, expectations, are imposed upon one from without. This was one of the first oppositions to the "good news", called the Judaizers.. who, it seems, by the letters to the Asian churches, progressed into outright persecution. They called theirselves apostles. And that opposition is still quite alive and active! Perhaps in some different ways..? The other was the gnostics who said God's Word could not be literal, but was (only) hidden knowledge only a few could understand. Seems like the two extremes..? The law, or as the gnostics ended up, with license (dissolution). Humans, I think, are prone to the extremes!

Grace changes from within.. and is His Spirit, His work.. I agree, to love.. encourage, accept, smile.. is to give life.. Are we a blessing? Or a curse? Or that is do we bless/spread life, or do we curse? Bring a shadow.. Our 'job' (service) is to love. Believers sometimes think they need to do the work of the HS! Which it is His work to convince the world (and someone) of sin. So why do some think they are supposed to do that? Because they don't trust, I think, the Lord's ability to do His transforming work. I try to think that most people are doing what they think is best, but the road of deception and error is very wide! And the road that brings fruit, presently, is rather narrow.. but opens up into the most spacious of fields.. A sunny pasture.. And a garden of life..
   :Peace2: :dsunny:

[jugghead]

The Mediator

Man calls it "language"

God calls it "The Word"

[jugghead]

I was given a question to ask myself:

Who am I?

The answer I was given is:

I am he who was created as less than I will become ... with the seed to become more than I am shown to be

Just wanted to share

Blessings

[Patinak]

Good question.
Good answer.

[rosered]

 made me think of

1 John 3


1Behold what manner of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God. [Matt 5 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.]


And that is what we are!


The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know Him.


2Beloved, we are now children of God, and what we will be has not yet been revealed.


We know that when Christ appears, we will be like Him, for we will see Him as He is.


3And everyone who has this hope in Him purifies himself, just as Christ is pure....

[marie glen]

 :thumbsup: Amen Rose, great verses! :dsunny:

[jugghead]

The word "and"

First question: Is there anything that exists that is unimportant to God? I myself do not believe so. In studies of the word of God (the Bible), we can choose what we want to study, and that by our own judgment of what we may believe is more important than something else, this judgment is what determines what we study. Have you ever done a study of, and thought about the implications of this simple word "and"? Has it become a word that we take for granted? A word that we think we fully understand?

By and through the disciple Matthew, he recorded these words of Jesus:

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." ( 5:18).

What is a "jot" or a "tittle"?

According to dictinary.com, the definition of a "jot" is as follows:

Jot
Verb (used with object), jot-ted, jot-ting
To write or mark down quickly or briefly (usually followed by down)
Noun
The least part of something, a little bit

And the definition of a "tittle" is as follows:

Tittle
Noun
A dot or other small mark in writing or printing used as a diacritic, punctuation, etc.
A very small part or quantity; a particle, jot, or whit

So, with this being said, I ask again, Is there anything that exists that is unimportant to God? Because even the word "or" used in this verse has this definition:

A primary particle of distinction between two connected terms

And with this we see that these two words "jot" and "tittle" are connected in some way. But are they synonyms or are they distinct from each other? When we go back to the two definitions, we can see that they are alike AND that they are different. What I mean by this is: in the definition of the word "jot" it can be used as a verb, meaning it has action. And that it can also be used as a noun, which the word "tittle" is also.

This is where they are the same, in that they can both be used as nouns; and by this use, they can be synonyms. But where they differ is the fact that the word "jot" can also be an action. So, by this, do we see the distinction between the two words in that one can be focused on the action and that the other one is focused on the result of the action? In other words; that the word "jot" is on the action of writing down a "tittle" and the word "tittle" is the result of the "jot/tittle" that was written down.

Why all this detail in explaining all of this? It has to do with something else that Jesus said, written down by Luke, that being:

"He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much; and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much." (16:10).

Because I believe that all things written can be applied to all other things written (which I believe is the process (the action) contained within the term "all in all") we can come to a greater understanding of His word. This is the reason I believe that everything we can come to understand in His word is just a fraction of what IS POSSIBLE to understand, and I believe this is what keeps us humble in what we already understand, because we know there is always more and we also know that there are always greater things to understand.

It is here that I would like to get into more detail about the simple word "and" and its use in Scripture, it is a word that stands alone and has a definite definition of its own. That definition being:

Apparently, a primary particle, having a copulative and sometimes also a cumulative force
Often used in connection (or composition) with other particles or small words

The two words "copulative" and "cumulative" need to be better understood in order to get a better understanding of the word "and" used in Scripture. Although there are more definitions to these words, for the sake of the point I am trying to make, I am only using the primary definitions. Not that the other definitions have less value, or are less important, but that the other definitions are already contained within the primary definitions.

Copulative:
Serving to unite or couple

Cumulative:
Increasing or growing by accumulation or successive additions

The first one I believe is self-explanatory, it is this second one that I believe needs to be better understood, because what I see in this definition is the aspect of building, the combining of two things to make them larger or stronger.

What I have found very interesting when it comes to writing is this; that as I write, the way something is written does not always make known the intention that the writer is trying to convey to the reader. Let's take John 1:1 for example.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

The word "and" is used twice in this verse, and this word separates this verse into three parts. And we can understand these three parts separately. But let's take into consideration the aspect of a "cumulative" value. What I mean by this is; that the word "and" is used to make each part stronger than what was previously written. And what I mean through this is: that all three parts have one thing in common, that being: "the Word"; but one has more strength or power than the previous one. It is like adding a tone of voice to the aspect of the next two parts compared to the first part.

What I mean by this is: the first statement, "In the beginning was the Word" is said in a normal tone of voice, but then when we read "and the Word was with God" we are raising our voice in volume making it louder and then when we read the third part, we raise our voice even louder to put the most emphasis on the fact that "THE WORD WAS GOD". Which I emphasized through the examples of bolding and capitulation.

This, I believe, is one of the least things thought about when we are reading His word, we have no idea the tone of voice John wanted to convey to the reader, but if we look at this simple word "and" as a word that is to add strength to what was previously said, it is by this, that I believe, what brings the written word to life and since it is an aspect of emphasizing the next word or term, it should be understood as a place to stop and think about that emphasis. And this is because even the definition of the word "tittle" has in its definition "diacritic" which can be understood in part as "to add stress", which I believe can also be seen as "to add emotion".

People who write music know this concept very well, for I believe that a "jot" or "tittle" in writing is like a "sforzando" in music. And just like the music itself in a song can trigger feelings in conjunction with the words, a "jot" or "tittle" is to add emotion to what is being read. It is this concept (that I also believe) is why children love to have stories read to them by their parents, because the parents can add different tones of voice into the words to make it more interesting; to add flavor to the story; to give it life.

Lastly, that the word "and" can be a form of punctuation like a semicolon, or bolding the font, or underlining a word or phrase or quotation marks, all these things are to add emphasis, and understanding that this emphasis is a means to trigger emotion, it is like adding a spirit of life to words that are being read that might otherwise remain dead.

For me, understanding itself can wake us up to the meaning of the "word" but to "FEEL IT" is what I believe has the greater impact on our own spirit, it makes it "REMEMBERABLE".

[jugghead]

"the" and "this"

Do you believe that the little things can be the easiest to overlook? I myself believe so. And because I believe this to be true, the littlest thing can make the biggest difference. And I also believe that the littlest thing can cause the most confusion.

As I was reading in one of the threads "the mystery of His will", I was led to the word "the" in this phrase. As I looked up this phrase in E-Sword, this was its definition:

G3588 The masculine, feminine (second) and neuter (third) forms, in all their inflections; the definite article; the (sometimes to be supplied, at others omitted, in English idiom): - the, this, that, one, he, she, it, etc.

In Paul's letter to the Ephesians he wrote this:

"In whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace; wherein He hath abounded towards us in all wisdom and prudence; having made known unto us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He hath purposed in Himself" (1:7-9).

What I found in the use of the word "the" it can lead us to ask the question: "What is the mystery of His will?" and by this we have taken our focus off of what was previously said. Paul also wrote in his first letter to Timothy:

"Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." (2:4)

And do we see the use of the word "the" in this verse can also lead us to ask the question: "What is the knowledge of the truth?"

It is here I would like to show something that I was shown. When we take the first quote from Paul and change the word "the" to the word "this" here is what we see:

"In whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace; wherein He hath abounded towards us in all wisdom and prudence; having made known unto us THIS mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He hath purposed in Himself" (1:7-9).

By this we see that "redemption through His blood; the forgiveness of sins" IS the mystery, not something other than this that we have to search for and find, it is right in front of our face and we can't even see it.

And when we do the same with the quote from 1st Timothy we can see this:

"Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto THIS knowledge of THIS truth." (2:4)

Can you see the big difference in the use of the word "the" compared to the use of the word "this"?

Just wanted to share this.

[jugghead]

And on a second note, the "modify" link is not working, it reverts us back to the reply box, not sure if others knew this

[marie glen]

Amen! Especially -

By this we see that "redemption through His blood; the forgiveness of sins" IS the mystery, not something other than this that we have to search for and find, it is right in front of our face and we can't even see it.

And on a second note, the "modify" link is not working, it reverts us back to the reply box, not sure if others knew this

yep.. an empty reply box.. so I deleted then reposted.. what with being kind of OCD sometimes.. :gsmile:
..and no matter how much I edit I usually see something to edit after posting :laughing7:

[marie glen]

...the 2nd edit button seems to be working..